11

2. Demographic and Travel Profile of the DRCOG Region

A. Demographic Profile

The Denver region has experienced rapid growth in recent decades and is expected to continue growing. This has important implications for transit. Demand for transit service will increase simply as a result of the greater number of residents and because traffic congestion is projected to rise as the population does. In addition, the proportion of the population that is traditionally more reliant on transit is expected to become greater between now and 2030. This includes elderly, young and disabled persons as well as households that have low incomes or that do not have an automobile available.

This section will examine the demographic changes that are expected to take place in the coming decades and the effects these changes will have on transit demand. Providing adequate service to those who are ―transit-dependent‖ is essential to the quality of life of those individuals and to the economic and social vitality of the region. ―Choice‖ riders—those who have an automobile available but could choose to use transit—should not be ignored. Appealing transit options should be available to these people for everyday commuting and recreational travel and as a back-up choice when a car is unavailable or weather is bad. This will work to reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel in the region, creating positive effects on congestion and air quality.

DRCOG Region Population

The DRCOG region includes nine counties—Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin and Jefferson. The nine counties are drawn together by strong economic ties and commuting patterns. However, the counties differ greatly in total population, economic activities, topography and urbanized area.

The City and County of Denver constitutes the metropolitan area‘s primary activity center and is surrounded by the suburban counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, and Jefferson. Boulder County to the northwest and Douglas County along Interstate 25 to the south are further removed geographically, yet still possess connections that tie them to the region. The mountain counties of Clear Creek and Gilpin to the west have economies oriented toward gaming, tourism, and mining.

Table 1 shows the changes in population in recent decades as well as DRCOG‘s projections of future population. Population will increase significantly by 2030 in all counties. The greatest increases will be seen in the suburban parts of Adams, Arapahoe, and Douglas counties, which will add over a quarter-million residents each by 2030. The rural counties of Gilpin and Clear Creek will both experience a 65 percent increase in total population in the same period.

12

Table 1. Total Population in the DRCOG Region

1990 2005 2010 2030 Population increase,

2005 to 2030

Adams 258,316 409,334 456,871 674,860 265,526 65%

Arapahoe 391,511 537,924 584,268 801,285 263,361 49%

Boulder 208,949 282,168 299,121 377,280 95,112 34%

Broomfield 24,636 48,207 53,974 79,773 31,566 65%

Clear Creek 7,619 9,753 10,871 16,002 6,249 64%

Denver 467,610 584,287 605,450 720,945 136,658 23%

Douglas 60,391 224,933 272,148 489,665 264,732 118%

Gilpin 3,070 5,206 5,810 8,582 3,376 65%

Jefferson 436,906 539,941 569,267 706,808 166,867 31%

Total 1,859,008 2,641,753 2,857,778 3,875,200 1,233,447 47%

Source: DRCOG

Elderly Population

The Denver region will follow a demographic trend seen throughout the United States as the Baby Boomer generation ages and as Americans continue to experience better health and longer lives. Approximately 12 percent of the Denver region‘s population is currently over 60 years of age. This proportion is expected to almost double by 2030. Table 2 shows that the percentage of seniors in each county will increase dramatically. In all counties but Adams, more than 20 percent of the population will be over 60 in 2030.

Table 2. Population Age 60 or Older

2005 2030

County 60+

Population % 60+

60+ Population

% 60+

Adams 43,997 10.7% 120,766 17.9%

Arapahoe 69,204 12.9% 190,579 23.8%

Boulder 33,036 11.7% 87,230 23.1%

Broomfield 5,053 10.5% 20,704 26.0%

Clear Creek 1,396 14.3% 6,255 39.1%

Denver 81,139 13.9% 151,864 21.1%

Douglas 9,218 8.5% 115,506 23.6%

Gilpin 635 12.2% 2,725 31.8%

Jefferson 80,915 15.0% 166,035 23.5%

Total 334,594 12.7% 861,663 22.2%

Source: DRCOG

This aging of the population will have an impact on demand for transit. Seniors who are no longer able to drive or who choose not to do so may use general public transit more often. In addition, the need will increase for specialized transit services for elderly residents who cannot access regular fixed-route service.

13

Assuring that these residents have convenient and comfortable transit options is essential to their quality of life. In the two mountain counties, Clear Creek and Gilpin, over 30 percent of the population will be seniors; few transit services exist in these counties today.

Youth Population

As the senior population of the region increases, the youth population percentage conversely decreases slightly (Table 3). However, the proportion of regional residents under the age of 16 is still significant, making up over 20 percent of the total population. These youth must rely on their parents, school buses and other transit services to travel. The demand for transit for youth will continue to increase, especially as many households have both parents working. Having easily accessible and safe transit options for children can significantly increase their mobility and reduce the need for parents to make automobile trips to take their children to school, recreation and other extracurricular activities. And, students in many school districts are increasingly required to use public transit instead of school buses to get to school.

Table 3. Population Age Under 16

2005 2030

County

Under 16 % Under 16

Under 16 % Under 16 Population Population

Adams 102,905 25.1% 152,439 22.6%

Arapahoe 120,126 22.3% 160,964 20.1%

Boulder 55,510 19.7% 67,741 18.0%

Broomfield 12,039 25.0% 18,510 23.2%

Clear Creek 1,709 17.5% 2,151 13.4%

Denver 123,359 21.1% 149,898 20.8%

Douglas 61,249 27.2% 112,904 23.1%

Gilpin 924 17.7% 1,606 18.7%

Jefferson 114,201 21.2% 172,516 24.4%

Total 592,021 22.4% 838,730 21.6%

Source: DRCOG

Disabled Population

The size of the disabled population is difficult to estimate. For this document, the definition of ―disabled‖ was equated with the U.S. Census Bureau‘s definition of a ―go-outside-the-home‖ disability used in the 2000 Census. Persons were identified as having a ―go-outside-the-home‖ mobility limitation if they said they had difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor‘s office because of a physical, mental or emotional condition lasting six months or more. A person with a mobility limitation as defined by the Census is not necessarily eligible for

14

transportation provided through the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), such as RTD‘s access-a-Ride.

According to the 2000 Census, the mobility-limited population in the Denver region makes up more than 6 percent of the total population 16 and older, or about 112,000 individuals (Table 4). Many of these people likely have difficulty driving and probably rely on rides from family or friends, specialized transit services or walking to get around. The Census indicates that about half of these individuals work, so transportation to employment is also needed. Because the Census Bureau used different definitions of ―disabled‖ in previous Censuses, it is difficult to assess changes in the disabled population over time; the Census also does not ask questions about disability status for children under 16.

Low Income Population and Households without a Motor Vehicle

Residents of the region with low incomes and those without access to a motor vehicle likely have a need for transit service. Figure 4 displays the geographic concentrations of these groups in the region. Areas with a per capita income of $15,000 or less (in a region where the average personal income is $27,600) are concentrated in the City and County of Denver and in portions of cities such as Aurora, Boulder, Brighton, Commerce City, Longmont, Sheridan and Thornton. Figure 4 also shows that in many parts of the region a significant number of households do not have an automobile available for use. Residents of these households are often transit users. Most of these areas with high concentrations of autoless households have frequent fixed-route transit service, but some are in locations that are less well-served by transit. Importantly, as Table 5 indicates, the number of households without a motor vehicle is increasing. All counties except Denver experienced an increase from 1990 to 2000 in both the number of households without a car and the percentage of all households that did not have

Table 4. Population with “Go-Outside-Home” Disability,

16 Years of Age and Over, 2000

County

Male Female Total

Disabled

% of Total Population Disabled

16-64 65+ Total 16-64 65+ Total

Adams 8,117 2,068 10,185 7,803 3,971 11,774 21,959 8.20%

Arapahoe 6,952 2,210 9,162 6,752 4,796 11,548 20,710 5.60%

Boulder 2,875 1,220 4,095 2,744 2,482 5,226 9,321 4.10%

Clear Creek 103 23 126 148 76 224 350 4.70%

Denver 12,614 3,738 16,352 11,395 7,818 19,213 35,565 8.10%

Douglas 1,140 300 1,440 1,189 582 1,771 3,211 2.60%

Gilpin 54 21 75 46 23 69 144 3.70%

Jefferson 5,983 2,736 8,719 6,388 5,384 11,772 20,491 5.10%

Total 37,838 12,316 50,154 36,465 25,132 61,597 111,751 6.10%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Broomfield did not exist as a county at the time of the 2000 Census. Disabled residents in what is now the City and County of Broomfield are included in other counties in this table.

15

one. Even counties with significant rural area experienced sizable increases in autoless households.

Table 5. Households without a Motor Vehicle

County

Number of Households

Percentage of Households

1990 2000 1990 2000

Adams 5,516 7,474 4.5% 6.1%

Arapahoe 7,313 10,687 3.8% 5.6%

Boulder 4,614 5,875 4.3% 5.5%

Broomfield 195 414 1.4% 3.0%

Clear Creek 104 118 2.6% 2.9%

Denver 33,789 33,147 14.1% 13.9%

Douglas 251 831 0.4% 1.4%

Gilpin 18 54 0.9% 2.6%

Jefferson 5,555 8,320 2.7% 4.0%

Total 57,355 66,920 6.1% 7.1%

Source: DRCOG

These 67,000 autoless households represent about 167,000 regional residents who must rely on some other form of transportation, often transit, to get to work, school and shopping. These numbers are likely to continue to increase, especially as a result of the rising population of lower-income immigrants.

The issue of environmental justice in regards to the 2030 transportation system is presented in the 2030 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. The environmental justice analysis examines the benefits and burdens the proposed transportation system would have on low-income and minority populations. The analysis found that accessibility to jobs for these residents will be greatly improved by 2030; this is largely due to new rapid transit that will be constructed and to the annual increases in RTD bus service that are planned.

B. Low Income Population and Employment Opportunities

This section presents information on the geographic distribution of low income/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) individuals and employment opportunities in the Denver Region. It also identifies major travel patterns for work trips for the target population. Knowing how low income households and employment opportunities are dispersed geographically is useful in analyzing ways to improve access to jobs.

The geographic distribution of low income/TANF individuals is discussed first, followed by a description of employment opportunities. The last section presents a discussion of work trip patterns for low-income/TANF individuals. In order to complete this analysis, a detailed methodology was developed and a description follows.

16

17

Geographic Distribution of Low Income/TANF Individuals

This analysis identified low-income Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) by identifying those TAZs with 200 or more low-income households. The DRCOG land-use model, which produces data used as an input to the regional transportation model, identifies the location of low-income households - those with an average household income of less than $15,000, irrespective of the number of individuals comprising the household, as defined by the 2000 U.S. Census. The methodology used selects the TAZs that contain greater than 200 low-income households. One hundred and sixteen TAZs contain a minimum of 200 low-income households. See Figure 4.

There are four areas that contain large concentrations of low-income households:

Central Metro Area. There is a concentration of low-income households in the central part of the metro area. These areas are concentrated along Colfax Avenue, Federal Boulevard, Park Avenue, and Colorado Boulevard.

South Metro Area. Concentrations of low-income households exist along between Alameda Avenue and Hampden Avenue and between Santa Fe Drive and Wadsworth Boulevard.

East Metro Area. Low-income households are present within the area encompassed by Colfax Ave, Colorado Boulevard, and I-225.

Boulder, Longmont, and Brighton free-standing communities. In Boulder, low-income household zones exist near the University of Colorado at Boulder. Many of these households are associated with the student population.

Though these concentrations exist, it should be noted that lower-income households exist throughout the region.

Geographic Distribution of Employment

Low-wage and entry-level employment opportunities were selected based on the presence of retail and service sector jobs. To determine the geographic location of entry-level employment opportunities, the DRCOG transportation model was used to analyze where low-income individuals travel for employment. TAZs with more than 35 daily low-income household home-to-work trip destinations were analyzed. In all, there were 201 TAZs that received 35 or more daily low-income household home-to-work trips. The 201 TAZs had a much higher percentage of retail and service employment trips within the TAZ than other TAZs within the Denver region. Thus, the TAZs selected as having entry-level employment opportunities are those TAZs containing retail and service employment opportunities.

Low Wage Employment

Low-wage employment is quite dispersed throughout the region (see Figure 5). Many of the entry-level employment opportunities are in retail and service sectors along major transportation corridors. Additionally, while the Central Business

18

District contains a high number of jobs, many jobs are also located in suburban areas. A summary of major concentrations of entry-level employment follows.

Denver Central Business District. This area has large concentrations of entry-level employment that support the activities of individuals with higher-waged jobs.

Central City/Black Hawk. These two communities feature several casinos which rely on service-sector employees for their primary operations thus creating many employment opportunities.

East side of the metro area. These areas include DIA and retail opportunities at older mall locations.

Southeast I-25. This corridor is another area with a high level of entry-level employment. The corridor stretches from I-225 to south of County Line Road. It includes the Denver Tech Center, Greenwood Plaza, and the office and retail development in the Park Meadows area.

Colorado Boulevard. This corridor is another area with a concentration of entry-level employment. There are several zones near the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and I-270, and a group of zones on either side of Colorado Boulevard between Colfax Avenue and Yale Avenue.

South Broadway/Santa Fe. There are several zones in the South Broadway/Santa Fe Drive area, mostly between Yale Avenue and Arapahoe Road. Two zones are near Broadway and Dry Creek Road.

Total Employment

In addition to looking at entry-level employment, it is useful to look at total employment, as many people who enter the workforce in entry-level jobs have the potential to move up as they gain skills. The DRCOG Travel Model includes estimates of employment over time. The years 2005, 2015, 2020, and 2030 were examined to identify both the total amount of employment in various sections of the metro area and the growth trend associated with these areas.

Downtown Denver and the surrounding areas have the largest employment base in the region. In 2005, the Denver CBD had approximately 8 percent of the total employment in the region, or approximately 130,000 jobs. However, over time, employment throughout the Denver region is expected to disperse and job creation is expected to occur throughout the region. Much of the job development is expected to occur along the I-25 corridor south of Denver which includes the Denver Tech Center. Employment centers in Aurora are expected to continue adding opportunities. For example, in 2005, Fitzsimmons Medical Campus had approximately 5,300 jobs. By 2030, that number is expected to increase to approximately 40,000 jobs. Other developments occurring along I-225 and E-470 will add employment opportunities to the far eastern portion of the region. See Table 6 for a summary of regional employment centers.

19

Boulder County is also expected to provide many job opportunities for the region. Boulder County includes the city of Boulder and the surrounding area and the city of Longmont. Currently Boulder County has 180,000 jobs, 36,000 of which are in Longmont. The employment in Boulder County is projected to increase to 215,000 jobs, or 9 percent of the region‘s employment. See Table 7 for a summary of county-level employment forecasts.

Table 6. Regional Employment Centers

Employment by Year

2005 2015 2020 2030

Central Business District 131,937 167,256 181,100 202,291

Percentage of Regional employment 9% 8% 8% 8%

South I-25 Corridor 127,317 168,217 184,251 208,792

Percentage of Regional employment 8% 9% 9% 9%

Fitzsimmons Medical Center 5,346 22,543 29,281 39,599

Percentage of Regional employment 0% 1% 1% 2%

Low Wage Employment and Late Night Transit Service

Many low-wage employment opportunities require workers to travel during off-peak hours. The RTD service schedules for bus and light rail were analyzed to determine where the late night service exists. Late night service was defined as service that ran past midnight. Only Route 15 along Colfax Avenue has 24-hour service. Figure 6 displays low wage employment in the region and the late night transit service routes. This information gives some perspective on where late-night transit gaps may exist for employment areas. It should be noted, however, that no time-of-day shift analysis was made for this report and the employment displayed is for a 24-hour period. Any consideration of extending service hours beyond midnight for job-access purposes would require a more detailed analysis of employment shift information.

Table 7. Total Employment Estimate and Forecast

County 2005 Estimate 2015 Forecast 2020 Forecast 2030 Forecast

Total Employment Total Employment Total Employment Total Employment

Adams 175,612 278,525 318,810 380,522

Arapahoe 318,200 385,182 411,141 450,941

Boulder 177,723 196,792 204,239 215,727

Broomfield 35,064 54,846 62,623 74,527

Clear Creek 3,486 4,222 4,526 4,990

Denver 484,864 594,685 636,617 700,820

Douglas 101,997 139,532 153,667 175,315

Gilpin 5,387 5,943 6,151 6,468

Jefferson 250,095 305,022 324,940 355,493

20

21

22

C. Travel Profile

Commuting Patterns

In 2000, 4.6 percent of the Denver region‘s workforce traveled to work by public transit (Table 8). This represents an increase in the share of commuters that take transit to work, up from 4.2 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, the share of people getting to work in a single-occupant vehicle (SOV) also increased.

Table 8. Commute to Work, 1990 and 2000

1990 2000

Drove alone 74.9% 75.4%

Carpool 12.5% 11.5%

Public transit 4.2% 4.6%

Walk or bicycle 4.0% 3.1%

Other means 0.7% 0.7%

Work at home 3.6% 4.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Reducing SOV use is one of the policies outlined in Metro Vision as a means of reducing congestion and air pollution. Table 9 shows the proportion of commute modes by county. The more urbanized counties show a higher percentage of transit use and other non-SOV modes of travel to work.

Commuter traffic is dispersed throughout the region, but also focuses on several major employment centers; these include the Denver and Boulder central business districts, the Denver Tech Center, Denver International Airport, and the Federal Center in Lakewood. By 2030, several other employment centers will grow to

Table 9. Commute to Work by Transportation Mode, 2000.

County Mean travel time to work (minutes)*

Percent of All Workers Age 16+

Drove alone

Carpool Public

transit**

Walk or bicycle

Other means

Work at home

Adams 27.6 76.0% 14.4% 4.3% 1.5% 0.7% 3.1%

Arapahoe 26.1 78.8% 10.9% 3.2% 1.8% 0.7% 4.6%

Boulder 22.4 70.8% 10.4% 4.9% 6.9% 0.7% 6.4%

Clear Creek 32.6 72.8% 13.2% 2.1% 3.7% 0.6% 7.6%

Denver 24.5 68.3% 13.5% 8.4% 5.3% 0.8% 3.7%

Douglas 29.3 81.0% 8.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.7% 7.9%

Gilpin 34.7 73.0% 15.5% 1.2% 4.2% 0.8% 5.2%

Jefferson 27.4 79.6% 9.9% 3.3% 1.5% 0.6% 5.1%

Total 26.0 75.4% 11.5% 4.6% 3.1% 0.7% 4.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau * does not include work at home ** including taxi

23

significant size to impact travel patterns. For instance, the redeveloped Fitzsimons area will eventually be the site of over 40,000 new jobs.

In addition to the increase in the number and location of jobs, employment trends show that types of jobs and work hours are also changing, and these changes affect transit need. The service sector of the job market will continue to increase in size. Many of these jobs are in suburban locations where there is generally less transit service. In addition, work times for many service sector jobs do not fall within the standard ―8 to 5‖ peak commuting times when transit service is most available and features more express routes. Even within job categories with a more traditional schedule, alternative work schedules are becoming more popular. Programs such as flex time, compressed work week and teleworking all create transit demand at times outside typical peak hours.

Changing residential patterns also affect transit. Residential growth outside the DRCOG borders, especially in Weld County, will lead to more workers making commutes into the region for work. Currently, almost 14,000 residents of southwest Weld County work in the DRCOG region. Within the DRCOG region itself, as urban centers are more fully developed throughout the region, these mixed-use centers will stimulate more trips; a significant number of these trips are expected to be made by transit.

The region will also see an increase in transit-oriented development (TOD) as new light rail and commuter rail lines are built. TOD involves the creation of compact, walkable communities centered around transit stations. TODs usually contain residential, retail and employment uses that are within walking distance of transit. They allow residents, workers and visitors mobility and convenience without dependence on cars. The development of TODs in the region should increase transit ridership and reduce SOV dependence.

CityCenter Englewood at the Englewood light rail station is an existing example of TOD in the region; the development features apartments, shops and government offices within walking distance of the rail station. Another TOD site being planned is the redevelopment of the former Gates Rubber factory property. The 50-acre site is adjacent to RTD‘s I-25/Broadway light rail station, bus transfer point and park-n-Ride. The development will feature residential, office, retail and entertainment uses. As RTD implements its FasTracks plan, new opportunities for TOD will arise at many of the new rail stations. Planning is already in the early stages for proposed stations such as the Federal Center on the West Corridor, the Boulder Transit Village on the US 36 Corridor, and at Peoria Street/Smith Road for the East Corridor.

Travel Patterns of the Elderly and Disabled

Information regarding the travel habits of the elderly and the disabled in the region is available from several studies. DRCOG‘s Strengths and Needs Assessment of Older Adults in the Denver Metro Area, released in October 2004, surveyed over 2,000 seniors on a variety of topics, including their transportation needs. The needs assessment found that the automobile was, by far, the most popular way for

24

older adults to make local trips (Table 10). Ninety-four percent of respondents said a car was their primary form of transportation. A total of 5 percent indicated that they used transit or senior vans and shuttles for most of their trips. These figures were nearly identical to those found in a similar study of seniors in the DRCOG region in 1999.

Table 10. Transportation Mode for the Elderly, 2004

For most local trips, how do you travel?

Percent responding

Drive or ride in car 94%

Public transportation 3%

Senior van, shuttle, etc. 2%

Taxi 0%

Walk 1%

Other 0%

Source: DRCOG

The 2004 needs assessment found that 11 percent of older adults need some help in getting or arranging transportation. This represents over 33,000 people in the region. This need increased with age and was higher for female, Hispanic and non-white seniors and for those who rented, lived alone, had less education or had a physically limiting condition.

The study also asked seniors what trouble they had getting the transportation they needed. Table 11 presents the responses. Many of the problems listed—such as those related to car trouble, having to rely on others, trouble getting around without help, disability or health—could be lessened if efficient, affordable transit service were readily available and if potential riders knew how to access it.

25

Table 11. Transportation Difficulties for the Elderly, 2004

When you have trouble getting the transportation you need, what is the main reason?

Percent responding

Car trouble 43%

Have to rely on others 14%

Not available when I need to go 13%

Trouble getting around without someone to help 6%

Transportation doesn‘t go where I need to go 6%

Weather 5%

Can‘t afford it 4%

Not available in my community 3%

Disability or health reasons 3%

Unfamiliar with transportation options or system 1%

Don‘t know who to call 0%

Other 4%

Source: DRCOG

Some of the respondents did make reference to transit or other senior transportation services. Thirteen percent said that transportation was not available when they wanted to go and six percent of respondents said that it did not go to their needed destinations. Three percent said this kind of transportation was not available where they lived and one percent were unfamiliar with what services were available or how to use them. More abundant and more extensive specialized transit service would likely be utilized by many of these seniors if it were available.

In 1994, RTD and DRCOG interviewed over 1,600 people to obtain an indication of the travel patterns of seniors and the travel-impaired. The category of ―travel-impaired‖ included anyone 10 years of age or older who was not able to travel outside their home without assistance due to a physical or mental impairment. Of all households surveyed, 2.7 percent included a travel-impaired member. The ability to drive a motor vehicle varied significantly between the travel-impaired and seniors. While only twenty percent of the travel-impaired were able to drive, 86 percent of the seniors were able to drive. Over 75 percent of the travel-impaired were able to ride in a motor vehicle as a passenger, even when they could not drive. The survey found that the primary mode of transportation for the mobility-impaired was riding as a passenger in a car (Table 10). Twenty-three percent drove a car. Seventeen percent primarily used some kind of transit service.

The travel-impaired respondents made an average of 4.1 two-way trips per week outside their homes. Fourteen percent of the travel-impaired typically made no trips outside their homes. Non-impaired seniors reported they made an average of 7.6 two-way trips per week. Only 1 percent of the seniors reported no trips outside

26

their homes. Seven out of 10 non-travelers would make trips if sufficient transportation were available.

Major Destinations of Elderly and Disabled Transit Users

In order to plan for the provision or extension of specialized transit services origination and destination points must be identified. Frequent destinations of the elderly and disabled include medical centers, senior centers, meal sites, regional shopping malls, major employment centers, nursing homes, assisted-living communities and Community Centered Boards that serve individuals with developmental disabilities.

The cost of specialized transportation varies greatly by destination. For example, meal site transportation is relatively inexpensive compared to most medical trips. Transportation to meal sites can usually be provided to several individuals, on a semi-fixed-route schedule, using one vehicle. Conversely, medical trips tend to be individual trips and are therefore more costly.

Recipients of Medicaid must seek medical treatment from the nearest appropriate medical facility and it is up to the transportation provider to ensure this rule is followed. However, medical trips in general are becoming longer and more complicated due to the locating of many new medical facilities on the periphery of the urbanized area. Transportation for transit-dependent users is often not considered in the planning of these new facilities.

The three major providers of specialized transportation in the region were surveyed to determine the most common reasons for trips (Table 12). Medical appointments were the most frequent trip purpose; these include doctor‘s visits and appointments for dialysis and therapy. Other personal needs accounted for one-quarter of all trips; these include social, religious, educational and recreational trips. Travel to a job or to a workshop was the other significant travel type comprising 22 percent of trips.

Table 12. Specialized Transit Trip Purpose January to April 2004

Trip Purpose RTD access-a-

Ride Special Transit

Seniors’ Resource Center

Total

Medical 25% 30% 48% 28%

Personal 26% 31% 1% 25%

Work or workshop 28% 8% n/a 22%

Daycare 9% 7% 16% 10%

Meals n/a 15% 20% 4%

Shopping 2% 7% 11% 3%

Other 9% 1% n/a 7%

Sources: RTD, Special Transit, Seniors’ Resource Center

27

Travel Patterns of Low-income Individuals and JARC Funding

The travel model analysis of 2005 data revealed many TAZs in the Denver region where transit trips constituted a small percentage of the total daily trips (see Figure 7). The analysis provided an overview of employment areas that appear to be underserved by transit. Further analysis should be conducted by transit service planners to fully assess the need for, and applicability of, JARC funds to improve transit service in the identified areas.

Information from RTD revealed that in some instances, previous attempts to increase ridership to some of the analysis zones was not met with success. For example, the Lockheed Martin facility in Douglas County continues to have low transit ridership despite previous attempts to increase passengers.

Northwest Denver Region

Overall, the northwest Denver region has few TAZs that are underserved by transit. One of the notable exceptions is the Flatiron Mall area in Broomfield. In fact, the Flatiron Improvement District applied for JARC funds in 2005 to increase service on the ZIP shuttle and promote the free bus pass program available to employees. Only one RTD bus services the mall area, Route 228.

The Rocky Flats site southeast of Boulder appears to be underserved by transit but most of the trips were associated with clean-up workers at the former plutonium refining facility. The site was remediated and converted to a wildlife refuge. As such, there is no longer a need to serve low-income workers at that location.

North Denver Region

In the north Denver region, two retail/service employment areas near I-25/120th Avenue and I-25/104th Avenue have a low percentage of transit users. Both areas are served by several existing bus routes and the proximity to I-25 may result in decreased bus use in favor of the automobile.

East Denver Region

North of I-70 and west of Peoria Street are there are four TAZs associated with the Montbello Industrial Park. The low rate of transit use in this area is curious because RTD‘s Montbello park-n-Ride is located within one-half mile of the TAZs and three routes circulate within the development. Further investigation of work schedules and corresponding service availability may provide an explanation for the low transit use.

28

29

Southeast Denver Region

With the November 2006 opening of the Southeast Light Rail line and extensive call-n-Ride areas, many of the TAZs that appear to have low transit use will likely experience changes in ridership. Within the southeast region, two corridors in particular seem as though they would benefit from increased transit service.

Nearly the entire Parker Road/Leetsdale Drive corridor from Colorado Boulevard in Glendale to I-225 in Aurora has limited transit use. Parker Road is a heavily commercialized corridor that features a diverse mix of commercial, retail, and service sector employers. Between Mississippi Avenue and I-225, the only RTD service is Route 83 and it runs as both a Limited and Local route, though by name, it is the 83 Limited. These data suggest that a dedicated local route may be needed or perhaps the true nature of the route should be clarified so that potential riders understand local stops are included.

Several TAZs bordering Arapahoe Road east of I-25 to Parker Road have low transit use. RTD Route 66 runs along Arapahoe Road to the Arapahoe Crossing Shopping Center in the northeast corner of the Arapahoe Road/Parker Road intersection. It is possible that transit use in this area will increase with the recent light rail opening but increased service frequency may be needed to service the shopping center.

Southwest Denver Region

In the southwest Denver region, two nodes of low transit use appear. One node is oriented around the Wadsworth Boulevard/Hampden Avenue intersection. The area is currently served by five RTD routes that converge at the Wadsworth/Hampden park-n-Ride. Considering the robust bus service that already exists in the area, the low use may be related to a shift differential between bus service and work hours or other contributing factors.

Northwest of Roxborough State Park in Douglas County there is a Lockheed Martin facility. Transit ridership is very low to this facility but that may be a reflection of the nature of the highly trained workforce and the fact that the only route to the facility is the 63x which only offers service six times per day.

West Denver Region

In the west Denver region near west Lakewood and southeast Golden, there are several TAZs with low transit ridership. The Denver Federal Center in Lakewood is one such area. The Federal Center is near the Cold Spring park-n-Ride that is served by 16 bus routes. With the wide range of buses that converge near the Federal Center it is unclear why more commuters don‘t use transit.

The Jefferson County Government Center is another facility that has low percentage of transit riders. The building has one bus route that serves it but its remote location may contribute to the poor use of transit to the facility.

30